Case 2417543/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss M Silva v Sentrex Services UK Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2417543/2020
- Decision date
- 16 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss M Silva
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss M Silva had been employed by Sentrex Services UK Ltd from 22 February 2019 as a cleaner or cleaning operative. At the preliminary hearing on 12 May 2022, the tribunal dealt only with the respondent's strike-out application. The notice-pay breach of contract claim was withdrawn after the claimant accepted she had received the sum claimed, albeit later than she said it was due, and the unfair dismissal claim was struck out because she had less than two years' continuous employment.
On the race discrimination claims, the tribunal accepted that the last alleged act was 26 March 2020 and that the claim form was lodged on 2 November 2020 after ACAS Early Conciliation between 21 September and 21 October 2020. It held that the discrimination claims were out of time on the primary three-month basis, but could not say they had no reasonable prospect of success because a final tribunal might extend time if it considered it just and equitable under section 123 of the Equality Act 2010. The tribunal referred to Cox v Adecco and said strike out is rarely appropriate in discrimination cases.
The tribunal also refused to strike out the discrimination claims for non-compliance with case management orders or for not being actively pursued. It found there had been clear non-compliance, but not deliberate non-compliance, and that the failures were linked at least in part to difficulties with the claimant's previous representative and language issues. With about five months remaining before the listed final hearing in October 2022, a fair hearing was still possible, and the tribunal accepted the claimant's assurance that the case was being actively pursued. No monetary remedy was determined at this stage.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The notice-pay breach of contract claim was withdrawn after the claimant accepted that she had received the amount claimed, albeit later than she said it was due. The judgment records that claim as dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out under rule 37(1)(a) because, taking the claim at its highest, the claimant had been employed from 22 February 2019 to 26 March 2020 and therefore did not have the two years' continuous employment required by s.108 ERA 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination claim: not struck out under rule 37(1)(a), (c) or (d); the tribunal held there was still a prospect that time might be extended as just and equitable under s.123 Equality Act 2010. | Other | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | Indirect race discrimination claim: not struck out under rule 37(1)(a), (c) or (d); the tribunal said the claimant could still argue for a just and equitable extension of time and the claim would proceed to hearing. | Other | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- rule 37(1)(a)
- rule 37(1)(c)
- rule 37(1)(d)
- s.108 ERA 1996
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- Cox v Adecco
- just and equitable test
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.